Paper Resolutions

Published:First published inRabochyNo. 2, September 8 (August 26), 1917.

      Published according to theRabochytext.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1977,

      Moscow,Volume 25,

      pages265-268.Translated:Transcription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive.  

      2002You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work, as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Mr.Tsereteliis one of the most garrulous of the
    “socialist” Ministers and petty-bourgeois leaders. You have
    to force yourself to read his countless speeches right
    through. These absolutely meaningless, absolutely non-committal,
    absolutely insignificant, truly “ministerial” speeches are
    so empty and banal. What makes these eloquent “utterances”
    (whose very emptiness was bound to make Tsereteli a favourite of
    the bourgeoisie) so intolerable is the infinite self-conceit of
    the speaker. It is sometimes hard to decide whether those sleek,
    smooth and honeyed phrases conceal unusual stupidity or cynical
    political trickery.

Themore meaningless Tsereteli’s speeches, the more
    emphatically we must stress the perfectly incredible and
    extraordinary thing that happened to him at the plenary session of
    the Petrograd Soviet on August 18. It is incredible but a fact
    that Tsereteli accidentally uttered a couple of simple, clear,
    sensible and true sentences. He uttered two sentences which
    correctly express a profound and serious political truth, a truth
    of no fleeting importance, but one that sums up the whole
    present-day political situation, its essential, radical features
    and its fundamental characteristics.

Accordingto the account published inRech, Tsereteli (the
    reader, of course, will remember that Tsereteli was up in arms
    against the resolution demanding the abolition of the death
    penalty) said:

“Noneof your resolutions will help. What we need is real
      action and not paper resolutions....

“Noneof your resolutions will help. What we need is real
      action and not paper resolutions....

Thereis no denying it. Sensible speeches are pleasant to
    hear.

Ofcourse, this truth hits first and hardest of all at
    Tsereteli himself. For it was he, one of the most prominent
    leaders of the Soviet, who helped prostitute this institution,
    reduce its role to that of a wretched liberal assembly, which is
    bequeathing an archive of exemplarily impotent and pious wishes to
    the world. Tsereteli—who got the Soviet, emasculated by the
    Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, to pass hundreds of
    “paper resolutions”—least of all had the right, when it
    came to adopting a resolution which struck a painful blow at
    himself, to cry out against “paper resolutions” He has put
    himself in -the particularly ridiculous position of a
    parliamentarian who has worked on more “parliamentary”
    resolutions than anyone else, has extolled their worth to the
    skies more than anyone else, and has fussed over them more than
    anyone else, yet, when a resolution is passedagainst him, cries
    “sour grapes!” at the top of his voice, saying that the
    resolution, after all, is only a paper one.

Nevertheless,the truth is the truth, even if uttered by a
    false man in a false tone.

Theresolution is a paper one not for the reason given by
    ex-Minister Tsereteli, who holds that defence of the revolution
    (don’t laugh!) requires the death penalty. The resolution is a
    paper one because it repeats the stereotyped formula which has
    been learnt by heart and meaninglessly reiterated ever since March
    1917—”The Soviet demands of the Provisional Government.”
    They are accustomed to “demand”, and they go on doing so by
    force of habit, not seeing that the situation has changed, that
    power has left them, and that a “demand” not backed by power
    is ridiculous.

Moreover,this stereotyped “demand” fosters among the
    people the illusion that the situation has not changed, that the
    Soviet is a power, that by announcing its “demand” the
    Soviet has done its business and can sleep the sleep of one who
    has done his duty as a “revolutionary (if you please)
    democrat”.

Areader may ask: “Do you mean to say that the Bolsheviks,
    who advocate political clearheadedness and taking account of the
    forces, and who are opposed to phrasemongering, should not have
    voted for the resolution?”

No.They should have voted for it, if only because one clause
    of the resolution (the third) contains the excellentand true idea
    (the fundamental, main and decisive idea) that the death penalty
    is a weapon against themasses(the situation would be different
    if it were a weapon against the landowners and capitalists). They
    should have voted for the resolution, even though the philistine
    Socialist-Revolutionaries fouled Martov’s text and instead of the
    reference to “imperialist aims which are alien to the interests
    of the people” inserted an absolutely false phrase intended to
    deceive the people and whitewash a predatory war, namely,
    “defence of the country and the revolution”.

Theyshould have voted for the resolution, at the same time
    recording their disagreement with certain passages and declaring:
    “Workers, don’t think the Soviet is now in a position to demand
    anything of the Provisional Government. Don’t have any
    illusions. Understand that the Soviet isalreadyunable to demand,
    and that thepresentgovernment is under the complete sway of the
    counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie. Think seriously about this
    bitter truth.” Nobody could have prevented the Soviet members
    from voting infavourafter they had made such reservations in one
    form or another.

Thenthe resolution would have ceased to be a “paper”
    one.

Andthen we could have got round the treacherous question of
    Tsereteli who asked the Soviet members whether they wanted to
    “overthrow” the Provisional Government—in quite the same
    way, in exactly the same way, as Katkov asked the liberals under
    Alexander III whether they wanted to “overthrow” the
    autocracy. We would have answered the ex-Minister: “Dear
    citizen, you have just passed a criminal law against those who
    ‘attempt’, or who only intend, to overthrow’ the government
    (which was formed by agreement between the landowners and
    capitalists, on the one hand, and the petty-bourgeois traitors to
    democracy, on the other). We are well aware that all the
    bourgeoisie would have praised you even more heartily had you
    ‘brought’ several Bolsheviks under that pleasant (for you)
    law. But don’t be surprised if we don’t go out of our way to help
    you find pretexts to apply that ‘pleasant’ law.”

Thewhole political system of Russia was reflected in the
    incident of August 18 like the sun in a pool of water: the
    Bonapartist government, the death penalty, the criminal law, the
    coating of these “pleasant” (for the provocateurs) pills by
    just the kind of phrases that Louis Napoleon used to give out
    about equality, fraternity, liberty, the honour and prestige of
    the country, the traditions of the Great Revolution, the
    suppression of anarchy.

Petty-bourgeoisministers and ex-ministers, cloyingly
    sweet-tongued, protesting that they have souls, that they are
    damning their souls by introducing the death penalty and applying
    it to the people, and that they weep when they do so—an
    improved edition of the “schoolmaster” of the sixties who
    followed Pirogov’s advice and thrashed not simply, not in the
    ordinary old way, but while shedding tears of commiseration over
    the good citizen’s son who was undergoing a “legitimate” and
    “just” caning.

Peasants,deceived by their petty-bourgeois leaders, continuing
    to believe that the marriage of the bloc of
    Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks with the bourgeoisie can
    bring about the abolition of private ownership of land without
    compensation.

Workers—butwe shall say nothing about what the workers
    think until the “humane” Tsereteli abolishes the new
    criminal law.